Christ, the Real Presence and the Last Supper

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adonia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Adonia

Guest
This was something I thought about the other day and I have two questions that need tp be answered.
  1. When Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…” did the bread and water/wine at that very instant become the body and blood of Our Lord?
  2. If the answer is yes, can we now assume that Jesus ate Himself? I mean no disrespect here at all and I pray that it is not a disrespectful query. I asked the Apologetic folks here and received no reply. Maybe some of you folks could enlighten me as to this.
 
This was something I thought about the other day and I have two questions that need tp be answered.
  1. When Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…” did the bread and water/wine at that very instant become the body and blood of Our Lord?
  2. If the answer is yes, can we now assume that Jesus ate Himself? I mean no disrespect here at all and I pray that it is not a disrespectful query. I asked the Apologetic folks here and received no reply. Maybe some of you folks could enlighten me as to this.
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. No disrespect. It was like that.
Next question, please!
 
  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. No disrespect. It was like that.
Next question, please!
Ok, thanks. Just what I had surmised. I would be interested in your response to these following comments. (Not mine) They were made someone who is in a Jewish/Christian type of church.

They were:

“Impossible!”

“Jesus was an adult male Jew. As such He was subjected to the Law of Moses which He had to keep in every detail. Ingesting flesh from anything without hooves and not chewing a cud was strictly forbidden; as was ingesting ANY blood from anything.”

“So, IF He ingested actual blood and human flesh, then He sinned by violating the Mosaic covenant and invalidated Himself as OUR SACRIFICE.”

Comments?
 
From a few years ago (emphasis is mine).
Also…look into Scott Hahn’s talk: “The Fourth Cup”.
Pax Christi
Jul 6, '04, 8:57 am
theodorro
New Member

Join Date: July 5, 2004
Location: Romania / Sibiu
Posts: 88
Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Did Jesus Eat Himself?
Excuse me if you will not understand all what I want to say, I hadn’t studdied English for 3 years.
I talked with a jew about The Last Supper of Jesus (Pessah/Passover supper), he said that in the jewish/hebrew tradition (which is like our Sacred Tradition), at the Passover supper, is to drink wine and eat unleaved bread for three times.
First the youngest member asks the older one: “why do we celebrate this?” and then the old member tells the story of the Passover (Exodus), after that, the same question and again the old member tells the Passover sotry, and the third time is the same.
Jesus drank wine and ate the bread first and second cup, the third time, he said to me, that Jesus gave to them[Apostels] to drink his Blood and to eat His Body, He created the Eucharity only at the third chalice of wine and the third bread.
 
From a few years ago (emphasis is mine).
Also…look into Scott Hahn’s talk: “The Fourth Cup”.
Pax Christi
Well, this is the first time I have ever heard THAT story in my 55 years as a Catholic. Gee, I wonder why the good Sisters at St. Joseph the Carpenter school never told us that at religions class. I attended RCIA with my wife several years ago and never heard that come up there either. Ummmm…, I think I will do some more investigation on this issue. Thanks for the reply and this new information. God bless.
 
Adonia,

I recommend you read the book :The Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" By Brant Pitre. It should answer alot of your questions and even answer the arguments given by your friends in that church.
 
This was something I thought about the other day and I have two questions that need tp be answered.
  1. When Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…” did the bread and water/wine at that very instant become the body and blood of Our Lord?
    **
    No…some Catholics misunderstand that when we share in communion it is the pre-resurrected Jesus that we receive. It is not. It is the Risen Christ. Jesus, at the last supper was just about to enter into his passion…he was not yet resurrected. He said “Do this in memory of me.” That was the important instruction. Also, it is a misunderstanding among Catholics that the moment of consecration is when the priest says the words “this is my body…this is my blood”. What is the consecration at mass? It is the entire Eucharistic Prayer.**
 
Ok, thanks. Just what I had surmised. I would be interested in your response to these following comments. (Not mine) They were made someone who is in a Jewish/Christian type of church.

They were:

“Impossible!”

“Jesus was an adult male Jew. As such He was subjected to the Law of Moses which He had to keep in every detail. Ingesting flesh from anything without hooves and not chewing a cud was strictly forbidden; as was ingesting ANY blood from anything.”

“So, IF He ingested actual blood and human flesh, then He sinned by violating the Mosaic covenant and invalidated Himself as OUR SACRIFICE.”

Comments?
Jesus is God. There is nothing He can do to “invalidate” Himself. Nor is anything impossible for Him. 🙂
 
Hi Anna,

I dont think that is consistent with the mind of the Church on the issue, in other words, yes Christ did indeed become reeally present in the eucharist at the last supper.

I can give you some sources for that, if you are interested in reading more. Here is one succinct one from the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 876. What happened when our Lord said, “This is my body; this is my blood”?
A. When Our Lord said, “This is my body,” the substance of the bread was changed into the substance of His body; when He said, “This is my blood,” the substance of the wine was changed into the substance of His blood.
I notice you give a reason for your proposition, but there are two other alternatives that are consistent with a real presence during the last supper. 1. The real presence involved, that once, a non-glorified body, or 2. It was a glorified body before the resurrection. As an aside, I think option 1 is better option, and I find support for it in various places.

VC
 
Hi Anna,

I dont think that is consistent with the mind of the Church on the issue, in other words, yes Christ did indeed become reeally present in the eucharist at the last supper.

I can give you some sources for that, if you are interested in reading more. Here is one succinct one from the Baltimore Catechism:

I notice you give a reason for your proposition, but there are two other alternatives that are consistent with a real presence during the last supper. 1. The real presence involved, that once, a non-glorified body, or 2. It was a glorified body before the resurrection. As an aside, I think option 1 is better option, and I find support for it in various places.

VC
The Baltimore Catechism has been superseded. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states…1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet ‘in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.’"135

Christ’s body was NOT glorified before the resurrection.
 
The Baltimore Catechism has been superseded.
I dont think it needed to be superseded, actually, as it was a local catechism not on par with the universal one. But, that was just an example of the common teaching that Christs real presence was inthe eucharist of the last supper. Like i said, we can look at the other sources that mention this if you are interestd. Are you?
Anna Claire:
Christ’s body was NOT glorified before the resurrection.
Actually, I agree. I only mentioned that as one alternative which would be consistent with a last supper real presence. The other alterntive, the one i think is more consistent with the mind of the Church or at least not inconsistent with it, is the eucharist at the last supper involved a non-glorified body.

The CCC quote you gave reads as Christ instituted the eucharist, i.e transubstantiation, at the last supper. I thought your “no” was denying this. Did i misunderstand you?

Thanks,
VC
 
“The CCC quote you gave reads as Christ instituted the eucharist, i.e transubstantiation, at the last supper. I thought your “no” was denying this. Did i misunderstand you?”

Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper pointed to his suffering, death and resurrection. He did not turn bread and wine into his body and blood by saying specific words. He was setting an example(showing others what to do…not only with bread and wine… but with their lives) and pointing to a future when he would be with us in a glorified sacramental state forever.
 
He did not turn bread and wine into his body and blood by saying specific words.
He certainly did according to the magisterium. Pope Paul VI wrote in Holemni Hac Liturgia:
  1. We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.(35)
 
Thanks marty,

That is a great source. We could add St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, other saints and other letters or encyclicals in support of the proposition that the real presence in the Eucharist was confected at the last supper.

VC
 
I remember a homily by our Holy Father from Holy Thursday 2009 that I thought treated this subject very beautifully and quite directly. Here is an excerpt that shows how it touches on the OPs question, but I’d encourage the OP to read the whole thing: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090409_coena-domini_en.html

“Now, however, a further question arises. In the Upper Room, Christ gives his Body and Blood to the disciples, that is, he gives himself in the totality of his person. But can he do so? He is still physically present in their midst, he is standing in front of them! The answer is: at that hour, Jesus fulfils what he had previously proclaimed in the Good Shepherd discourse: “No one takes my life from me: I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again …” (Jn 10:18). No one can take his life from him: he lays it down by his own free decision. At that hour, he anticipates the crucifixion and resurrection. What is later to be fulfilled, as it were, physically in him, he already accomplishes in anticipation, in the freedom of his love. He gives his life and he takes it again in the resurrection, so as to be able to share it for ever.”

Another homily (catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=68) he also said:
*In the Corpus Domini procession, we walk with the Risen One on his journey to meet the entire world, as we said. By doing precisely this, we too answer his mandate: “Take, eat… Drink of it, all of you” (Mt 26: 26ff.).

It is not possible to “eat” the Risen One, present under the sign of bread, as if it were a simple piece of bread. To eat this Bread is to communicate, to enter into communion with the person of the living Lord. This communion, this act of “eating”, is truly an encounter between two persons, it is allowing our lives to be penetrated by the life of the One who is the Lord, of the One who is my Creator and Redeemer.

The purpose of this communion, of this partaking, is the assimilation of my life with his, my transformation and conformation into he who is living Love. Therefore, this communion implies adoration, it implies the will to follow Christ, to follow the One who goes ahead of us. Adoration and procession thereby make up a single gesture of communion; they answer his mandate: “Take and eat”. *

In other words, in sharing in the breaking of the bread with us, the Lord wasn’t “eating himself”; rather, he was assimilating his life and ours. It was an act of becoming truly one in life. When we adore the Eucharist, we aren’t adoring the Lord as divine food, like ambrosia from Olympus or something, but as our God, our all, our life.
 
  1. When Jesus said at the Last Supper: “This is my body…” and “This is my blood…” did the bread and water/wine at that very instant become the body and blood of Our Lord?
It seems reasonable to say so. After He said “this is my body” He gave it to His disciples to eat, and after He said “this is … my blood” He gave it to His disciples to drink. If Jesus did actually consecrate the bread and wine to become His Body and Blood in the Eucharist at the Last Supper (as the Catholic Church believes), then His words (as the evangelists and Paul have transmitted them to us) seem to have effected the change in the elements of bread and wine.

To be more precise: it would seem that Jesus picked up bread, but distributed His Body; likewise with the cup/chalice of wine. (Not unlike the Englishman who went up a hill and came down a mountain.)
  1. If the answer is yes, can we now assume that Jesus ate Himself?
The Gospels do not make it clear whether Jesus actually consumed the bread and wine after He had blessed them, and theologians have disagreed over whether He did or not. For example, see , III, 81, article 1Summa Theologica. (Thomas was of the opinion that our Lord did consume Himself.)
“He was subjected to the Law of Moses which He had to keep in every detail. Ingesting ANY blood from anything [was strictly forbidden].”

“So, IF He ingested actual blood and human flesh, then He sinned by violating the Mosaic covenant and invalidated Himself as OUR SACRIFICE.”
Regardless of whether Jesus did this, we know His disciples certainly did, and no matter what other sins they had committed, they were now consuming the Body and Blood of Christ under the sacramental appearances of bread and wine.

The law forbade the consumption of blood (specifically from animals/sacrifices) because “the life is in the blood”. Consuming animal blood would imply (whether or not it actually did this) that you were absorbing into yourself the “life” of the animal. Now, God has not called us to be partakers of mere animal life, but He has called us to be partakers of His own divine nature and life (cf. 2 Peter 1:4), so it does not seem unreasonable to consume the blood of God, if the divine life is indeed in the divine blood.

Jesus also fulfilled the Mosaic law and established a new covenant in His own blood. It stands to reason that with this new covenant there would be a new law.

I think of it this way: Jews were strictly forbidden to consume any blood so that they would never consume any blood except that which they were finally permitted to: the Blood of God. They would not regard this sacramental blood as comparable in any way to any other blood, since this blood – and this blood alone – they were permitted to receive.
 
Jesus, at the last supper was just about to enter into his passion…he was not yet resurrected. He said “Do this in memory of me.” That was the important instruction. Also, it is a misunderstanding among Catholics that the moment of consecration is when the priest says the words “this is my body…this is my blood”. What is the consecration at mass? It is the entire Eucharistic Prayer.
But when Jesus said “This is my body” and “This is … my blood”, what He said actually came to pass: the bread and wine did become His Body and Blood at the Last Supper.

And the Church still affirms that, at least in the Roman Rite, there are “words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation” (GIRM 3) and that the genuflection made by the priest-celebrant comes “after the consecration” (GIRM 43) and that an acclamation is made by the congregation “after the consecration” (GIRM 147). A bell may be rung “a little before the consecration” (GIRM 150), presumably meaning around the part of the Eucharistic Prayer known as the first epiclesis (or the "epiclesis of consecration), rather than shortly before the Eucharistic Prayer itself begins. The priest says “Mysterium fidei” (“The mystery of faith”) “after the consecration” (GIRM 151). The use of incense is permitted “At the showing of the host and the chalice after the consecration” (GIRM 276e), the part we often call the “elevation” of the host and of the chalice.

The Church calls one and the same part of the Eucharistic Prayer both the “Institution narrative” and the “consecration”, and describes this part in this way:
In which, by means of words and actions of Christ, the Sacrifice is carried out which Christ himself instituted at the Last Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave them to his Apostles to eat and drink, and left them the command to perpetuate this same mystery. (GIRM 79d)
Thus the Church teaches that a) Christ did carry out a true sacrifice at the Last Supper, b) that the bread and wine were indeed His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, and c) that in one particular part of the Eucharistic Prayer is (at least especially or particularly) consecratory.

One note about the first epiclesis (or “epiclesis of consecration”). Going by the testimony of Scripture, we have no record of Jesus praying for the Father to send His Spirit upon the bread and wine before He said “This is my body” and “This is … my blood.” The words of blessing He said were most likely traditional Jewish words of blessing over bread and over wine, words which blessed God for His gifts. The only thing that comes close to an “epiclesis” in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper is in John’s Gospel, and there it comes after the consecration and consumption of the Eucharist; there, it is what we now call the “second epiclesis” or the “epiclesis of communion”, whereby the priest asks that the Holy Spirit would work in those who receive the Body and Blood, to bring about unity.
Christ’s body was NOT glorified before the resurrection.
Well, He did appear somewhat glorified in His transfiguration on the mountain, witnessed by Peter, James, and John. This seems to have been an anticipation of His glorification, just as the Last Supper was an anticipation of His sacrifice; these anticipations need not be seen merely as “pointing” to a later event, but actually making that later event present now, as a foretaste.
Jesus’ actions at the Last Supper pointed to his suffering, death and resurrection. He did not turn bread and wine into his body and blood by saying specific words.
On the contrary, CCC 621:
Jesus freely offered himself for our salvation. Beforehand, during the Last Supper, he both symbolized this offering and made it really present: “This is my body which is given for you” (Lk 22:19).
I think you will find it to be the perennial testimony of the Church that Christ truly did turn the bread and wine at the Last Supper into His Body and Blood for His disciples to receive.
 
That is a great source. We could add St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, other saints and other letters or encyclicals in support of the proposition that the real presence in the Eucharist was confected at the last supper.
On such recent document: “In instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist, Jesus anticipates and makes present the sacrifice of the Cross and the victory of the resurrection.” Sacramentum Caritatis 10
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top